No doubt their days of undimmed prosperity had passed. Economic changes had pressed hard on all landlords, and recent religious movements had seriously affected all forms of charity. The friars in particular must have felt the effects of the latter, and their buildings had evidently fallen steadily into disrepair. Yet even they can hardly be said with justice to have been hopelessly insolvent. They had assets of considerable value:[203] those which were sold at Stafford amounted to £32 6s. 4d. at the Austin Friars (besides 13 oz. of plate and bells worth £8 8s.), and £34 3s. 10d. at the Grey Friars (besides 16 oz. of plate, £45 worth of lead, and bells worth £10. The sale of the effects at the Grey Friars’ house at Lichfield produced £68 15s. The small debt of the Grey Friars at Stafford was discharged by the sale of timber and growing corn.

The indebtedness of the “monasteries” is in all probability to be accounted for, to no small extent, by the very large sums which most of them had been recently called upon to pay under the pretence that they were to be allowed to continue. The amount seems to have been roughly calculated at a year’s net income, as will be seen from the following table. The first column of figures gives the net income of the house as returned in Valor Ecclesiasticus (1535), and the second the fine paid for being allowed to continue (1536–7).

Net Income. Fine.
£ s. d. £ s. d.
Croxden Abbey 90 5 11 100 0 0
Hulton Abbey 76 14 0 66 13 4
Rocester Priory 100 2 10½ 100 0 0
St. Thomas’s, Stafford 141 13 2¼ 133 6 8

To enable themselves to pay such very large sums in ready money the monks would have to leave many small creditors unpaid for a time. The fact that they were able to do this is of itself sufficient to show that in the popular estimation they were considered thoroughly solvent. They had abundance of assets, as is shown by the amounts raised at the sales of the furniture, etc., at the Suppression. Dieulacres (which had not been called upon to pay a fine for continuance), proved to have lead alone worth £720, besides 117 oz. of plate, and bells worth £37 10s. The actual goods sold produced £63 14s. 10d., and would have doubtless realized a much higher sum if they had been disposed of under other conditions. Besides, the net income of the Abbey was returned in Valor Ecclesiasticus as £227 5s., so that a debt of £171 10s. 5d. cannot be considered, under the circumstances, entirely unreasonable.

The financial condition of St. Thomas’s Priory, the other house which we are told was heavily in debt, was rather worse than that of Dieulacres, but it had recently paid the heavy fine of £133 6s. 8d. It owed £235 19s. 7d., in addition to the mortgage of £43 6s. 8d., which was covered by the plate mentioned. Yet even this large sum is not much more than half as much again as a year’s net income; and if, as we have surmised, it had been partially incurred by the payment of the Fine for Continuance, it was considerably less. At the sale of the effects of the Priory, £87 9s. 6d. was realized, besides £40 worth of lead, bells worth £54, plate, etc. Here, again, we cannot fairly say that the position was one of hopeless bankruptcy.

The allegation of insolvency against the houses appears, therefore, to have little basis in fact. The monks had felt the adverse effects of recent tendencies, both economic and religious, and their finances had quite recently been subjected to a severe and exceptional strain. But in spite of this they appear to have been in a fairly sound financial position. Their normal debts represent only the casual credit of ordinary life. Their alleged insolvency was merely temporary and mainly fictitious. In the ordinary course of events it would have been discharged in due course.

CHAPTER IX
LOSS AND GAIN

We do not propose to enter into a discussion of the principles which were involved in the Dissolution of the Monasteries, or of the religious and moral loss and gain which ensued. It would be superfluous and profitless. We may, however, attempt to form an idea of the way those who were responsible for the suppression solved the various practical questions which had to be faced in bringing the religious houses to an end, and to estimate the degree of success which attended their efforts. Of course we shall consider only the immediate results: the broader and ultimate religious, constitutional, and economic effects are the province of the historian of the epoch and the nation, not of the student of a brief episode in the history of a single locality.

There were many material interests to be considered, for it must not be forgotten that the monks and nuns, friars and canons, were not the only people affected by the changes we have been considering. The King, the clergy, the tenants, the lay people employed, maintained, and assisted at the monasteries, all had interests more or less important.

We may note at the outset that the necessity for taking into consideration the material interests involved was fully recognised. According to the instructions issued to the suppression officials who dealt with the lesser monasteries, the Superior of each house was to be provided for, but no one else. Accordingly at Trentham we find no record of pensions to any others except the Prior. The rest were to be given the option of receiving “capacities” or of being transferred to other houses. This was following the precedent of earlier dissolutions, and it will be remembered that Dr. David Pole, of Calwich, was ordered to be “translated to some good house of his religion near.”[204] While the work of destruction was yet on a small scale, and its ultimate extension unsuspected, it may have appeared less necessary to conciliate public opinion, by removing occasion for complaints of material and pecuniary loss, than appeared later. As it became evident that the destruction of the monasteries was to become wholesale, and that great numbers of people, not only religious but lay folk, must be affected, it may well have seemed politic and wise to take pains to assure everyone that vested interests would be respected.